The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

The Wichita Eagle notes that Brownback has announced he will add the flat tax to his Presidential platform:

Remember the flat tax? The policy proposal gained traction among conservative politicians for a while in the 1990s, but it withered amid little real-world political support.

Now it’s back, as a fiscal policy cornerstone of Sen. Sam Brownback’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

It calls for earned income to be taxed at the same marginal rate, unlike the current system, which has different tax brackets for different incomes. Typically, proponents of a flat tax call for eliminating most deductions except for a sizable individual exemption.

“We need a flat tax instead of the dreadful, incomprehensible tax code we now have,” Brownback wrote in the letter that announced the creation of his presidential exploratory committee.

Frequent visitors to TheAntiSam will remember Brownback’s previous flirtation with the flat tax. In March of 2006, Brownback held hearings on the Flat Tax with the stated goal of implementing it in Washington D.C.

Over at The Right’s Field, Matt makes an interesting comment on Brownback’s adoption of the flat tax platform for his presidential campaign:

What this does do, though, is define Brownback as a candidate with strong beliefs at a time when other leading Republican contenders are regularly lambasted for flip-flops and shifting political visions. Not every Republican will go for a flat tax, but it will certainly distinguish Brownback from other candidates - just as his stance on the Iraq war is unique for GOP candidates (save Pataki). Unlike Chuck Hagel, whose only hope is through voters valuing his principles, Brownback’s principles have appeal to a larger segment of the primary voting base. Standing up for one’s beliefs is a tactic that I’d recommend to any politician; it just happens to be something that can realistically be expect to propel Brownback to the nomination.

I agree. Brownback is certainly positioning himself as the candidate with principles. Perhaps not all GOP primary voters with agree with his principles, but compared to the other jokers in the running, Brownback comes out looking the least wishy-washy on the issues that matter most in the Republican Primary.

Yet another example of Senator Sam Brownback saying one thing to pander to his base and then doing something completely different. On a day that had all conservatives squirming under the crushing weight of their out of control spending, Senator Brownback voted for a $2.8 Trillion federal budget just after he voted to increase the national debt ceiling to accommodate his spending spree.

If Brownback was truly principled he would have voted against the budget. He has been talking the talk about increased fiscal responsibility and now refused to walk the walk.

This vote will be used with success in the upcoming midterm elections against republican incumbents. The days when republicans could claim to be the party of small government are long gone.

Senator Sam Brownback likes to make statements about cutting spending and being fiscally conservative. Here’s the latest from the LA Times:

The GOP faithful is unenthusiastic over a blueprint that fails to deliver tax cuts and new spending curbs.

“It’s not near enough,” said Sen. Sam Brownback,” R-Kan., a prominent conservative. “It’s what we can get through and we’ll be pressed to get this through.”

Awww, such warm fuzzy conservative rhetoric. Who could guess he’s running for president?

Such talk masks Brownback’s history as a spender. He likes pork just as much as the next Senator. He even funded upgrades to an ammunition plant in Kansas that was going to be closed. $10 million went to a plant that was soon to be handed over to the private sector. He had no problem getting that “through”.

To no one’s surprise, Senator Sam Brownback pushed a flat federal income tax for Washington D.C. at a hearing yesterday.  While Dick Armey showed up to shill for Brownback’s idea, there was pointed criticism of using D.C. citizens as economic lab rats:

Paul Strauss, the District of Columbia’s shadow senator, said it would be “unconscionable” to impose a different tax system on the city.

He sat up front at a hearing at which Brownback heard testimony from four conservative economists who support the idea.

“It is morally wrong for Congress to use D.C. as an experiment,” Strauss said. “I also find it alarming that this Congress, which has all but bankrupted the federal government, now wants to change the system in D.C., which has a budget surplus.”

I don’t have much to add to what I wrote previously on this subject. I think Washington D.C. should have real representation and should not be treated as an idea sandbox for whichever party is in power. Let D.C. decide what is right for D.C., not some Senator from Kansas who is trying to make a name for himself before the 2008 GOP presidential primary.

As mentioned previously, Senator Sam Brownback desires to experiment on Washington DC and impose a flat tax instead of the current federal income tax. Today, he will hold a hearing on the subject with several dissenters in attendance. The DCist reports:

Brownback will chair a hearing to further explore the issue, one that he has openly proclaimed to be excited about. His excitement may be tempered by stiff opposition from D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, though, their non-voting status notwithstanding. The hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. in 124 Dirksen.

We’re not real big fans of the idea. It’s not so much that we think a flat tax won’t work, it’s that we’d rather not see it imposed by congressional fiat. Lord knows the country’s tax system could use an overhaul and the tax code a good re-write, but the District may not be the best place to start for those trying to be creative about it.

I completely agree. I don’t have the requisite economics background to declare this beneficial or otherwise, but I am sure that a Senator from Kansas should not be making decisions about Washington DC. DC is far overdue for some real representation. Senator Brownback should stop using DC citizens as his personal guinea pigs.

The larger context of this hearing is the 2008 GOP primary. Senator Brownback is posturing for the Steve Forbes wing of the republican base which could otherwise be turned off by his government intrusion into private lives. Brownback hopes to buy them off while he advances his radial agenda of intolerance.

While Senator Sam Brownback may talk like a fiscal conservative, his continued support of the War in Iraq shows that he is no spendthrift. The Guardian reports:

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

How has Brownback suggested we reduce the financial cost of the war? Don’t buy the new state any garbage trucks:

Brownback also said he supported President Bush’s request for $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction of Iraq, but that half of the $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction should be in the form of loans to the country instead of grants.

“Iraq has the potential for a strong economy in many sectors and the availability to repay this,” Brownback said.

He also said the budget request probably could be pared down by $2 billion by eliminating such items as construction of human rights memorials and the purchase of garbage trucks at $50,000 apiece.

Somehow I don’t think cutting garbage trucks from the budget will make up $1 - 2 trillion. Sam Brownback is more than willing to mortgage our future on a war that we were led into by a lie. He is no fiscal conservative.

Here is some more inside baseball for the New Years crowd. The National Review Onlinee has published the results of its “insider” poll along with advice for aspiring presidential hopefuls. Here is Senator Brownback’s entry:

SAM BROWNBACK (18/N.A.): Among social conservatives, the senator from Kansas possesses sterling credentials. He could become the John Ashcroft of this cycle, which perhaps isn’t saying much because Ashcroft dropped out of the 2000 race before the first primary. Brownback would serve himself well by courting economic conservatives in 2006; he might begin by proposing a major piece of pro-growth legislation or identifying himself with the flat tax. If he can unite the former supporters of both Ashcroft and Steve Forbes, he might stand a chance. A better-than-expected showing in the primaries could catapult him to the top of many vice-presidential short lists.

I completely agree that for Brownback to have a chance he must create a coalition of disaffected, radical social conservatives and economic conservatives. The fringes of these groups both feel marginalized by the current administration and are ripe for some good old fashioned pandering. Of course, Brownback has already proven himself to be a wasteful spender, so he is coming at this from a disadvantage.

I don’t buy into the vice presidential speculation. Brownback has an enormous ego and would be loathe to play second fiddle to anyone. He has always been an “all or nothing” bridge burning, negative campaigning sort of guy. The Vice Presidency is not his style.

[This C-SPAN interview will run on Sunday at 8pm and 11pm. My readers get it here first]

This is the complete C-SPAN interview. I will continue pulling out excerpts and providing analysis in the days to come but I also wanted to provide my readers with the full copy. I added the Blockquotes and Subsection Titles to help make it more readable. A little light holiday reading…

Why Do You Want To Be President?

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, why do you want to be president someday?

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R), KANSAS: To be able to serve the people and to be able to renew the society and the culture. There are lots of reasons why one wants to do something like this. And I haven‘t made a formal announcement or a formal declaration. I have been traveling to a number of the early primary states.

But at the core of it, I just see that the country really needs to renew its basic structures. We have got — I chair the D.C. Appropriation Committee, and we have got over — just right at 60 percent of the children born to single mothers. A child can be born in that situation and do well, but the numbers generally move against him.

And I think we have really got to renew just these basic structures within the society. And that‘s at the core. I‘m also an economic conservative. I push things like the flat tax. I‘m a strong proponent of the military and a robust foreign policy. I‘m a full scale conservative in that sense.

But at its core I think we have to renew the society and renew the culture.

(more…)

President Bush’s Healthy Marriage Initiative seems to appear any time republicans are worried about support from their Christian Fundamentalist base. Given the subject matter, it should be no surprise that Senator Sam Brownback is involved. The Washington Times reports:

“Tragically, government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year to pick up the pieces when marriage fails, yet does virtually nothing to preserve or strengthen marriage,” Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said in a letter sent Thursday to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA).
“The healthy marriage initiative represents a bold departure from this pattern of failed policy,” said the letter, which was signed by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Jim Talent of Missouri, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and David Vitter of Louisiana.

A veritable who’s who of panderers to the religious right. How does this legislation encourage marriage? The Heritage Foundation explains:

The proposed program would seek to increase healthy marriage by providing individuals and couples with:

• Accurate information on the value of marriage in the lives of men, women, and children;
• Marriage-skills education that will enable couples to reduce conflict and increase the happiness and longevity of their relationship; and
• Experimental reductions in the financial penalties against marriage that are currently contained in all federal welfare programs.

Of course all of these claimed benefits would only be for heterosexual couples. No need for gay or lesbian couples to attempt to get the benefits. This is par for the course for these intolerant republicans. Certainly Brownback doesn’t like gays and lesbians. The HRC is quick to comment on the rank hypocrisy:

“We think it’s ironic that the administration is spending $1.5 billion to support this [marriage initiative] while at the same time considering a constitutional amendment that would deny the security and stability and protection of marriage to literally millions of same-sex couples who are in lifelong devoted, committed relationships and want to embrace those rights,” said HRC spokesman Mark Shields.

I don’t have a problem with the counseling services the legislation would provide, even though I’m sure most of the money would go to churches which would discriminate and proselytize. Frankly, churches have taken the lead on marriage counseling and I wish more secular options were available.

My main concern with this government meddling in marriage centers around the last point of financial incentives. I don’t believe the government should be in the business of monetizing marriage. It seems to me that a decision to marry based upon potential financial benefits is built upon a shaky foundation. Besides seeming crass, would republicans really want people marrying for the money?

Additionally, why should women women who have abusive boyfriends be financially encouraged to marry them? Shouldn’t a strong woman who walks away from abuse be rewarded for trying to provide a better environment for her children? Why penalize women in this way?

Obviously this legislation is pandering towards a certain set of voters who don’t care about women’s or GLBT issues. Brownback certainly fits that category.